click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
of it followed bill clinton's 1993 tax increase. now, mitt romney has just spent two years telling us that tax cuts are all you need to stimulate the economy. is that wrong? >> absolutely wrong. supply side economics is bunk. we have seen historically not only when bill clinton raised taxes the economy did very well. george w. bush in 2001, 2003, cut taxes and the economy did very badly and then ultimately went really over a cliff in 2008. or more evidence for the first three decades after the second world war in the united states, the top tax rate never fell below 70% under dwight d. eisenhower, president eisenhower -- >> and yet professor, we have heard paul ryan, the so-called budget policy wonk of the house, repeatedly tell us that what we need to do is cut taxes and the economy does great. >> well, that's just simply not true. we had an election. most of the americans obviously did not believe that nonsense, and it is absolutely nonsense. there's no correlation at all between tax rates on the very top and the economy doing worse or for that matter doing much better. but here we have a hug
bill clinton came in and said we are way too left and have to moderate our positions and that is where the democratic leadership council came in. there are a lot of democrats that were very upset with bill clinton during the late '80s and early '90s. they obviously won the white house back in 1992 because they nominated a moderate to center democrat that could win independents and women and people of color and so forth? >> there is an article that the tea party is over. that obviously is the right of the right fringe element of the republican party. very hard line. they certainly had a bigger voice when more of those supported members were elected to congress in 2010, but is that accurate? do you think the tea party is over for extreme conservea tichl? >> time will tell. clearly last tuesday voters didn't express happiness or support for the tea party very clearly. the question will be whether the republican party tries to move as jonathan just described, kind of moderates their message or still beholden to that kind of extreme part of the party? we're starting to see a few dfrs say we
and tell them you're dead here, you're finished. it's almost macabre. >> we have talked about bill clinton as a super surrogate for barack obama. mike, the guy in that ad, he's a super anti-surrogate, an anti-validator of mitt romney. he looks like the voter that barack obama needed to change sides, that former reagan democrat, that white working class guy looking dead into the camera and saying, this guy destroyed us. he took away our livelihood and he made us build the stage that we had to stand on to announce the end of our jobs. it was absolutely the most devastating ad, but what was also remarkable was the romney people had no response. look, they had a six-month lead time on this line of attack because remember something called winning our future pac? they ran a 27 minute ad of this same message. romney, because he survived in florida after that, he seemed to think i can get over this because he didn't respond. >> i talked to -- >> jane mayer, you write in your piece that sarah palin of all people thought that the bain ad had a negative impact on mitt romney's candidacy. she thinks i
. >> in 1997 after bill clinton got re-elected but before lewinsky, the republicans tried to do the same thing on chinese fund-raising. remember that? they spent the better part of a year trying to turn this into a huge scandal. there is a little more to that one than there is to this. this is just exploiting a tragedy for political purposes. >> and here is the great irony. john mccain, who seems like he's the big whistle-blower, going after susan rice yesterday. compare what he said about susan rice yesterday with what he said about another foreign policy expert, in this case condoleezza rice, back in 2005. here is mccain on susan rice. take a listen. >> susan rice should have known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. she should have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> okay. mortal sin, deal breaker, end of her career because john mccain said she had gotten the wrong brief and delivered the wrong brief. however, mccain had a very different reaction back in 2005 when condoleezza rice was nominat
government of bill clinton being replaced. no. it's also something that domestic constituencies drive u.s. presidents to participate in. but it doesn't just come from that. i mean, it really comes from a deep u.s. involvement from the start in the creation of israel. a deep concern about wanting to help israel secure itself. but also bring about peace in the middle east. i'd like to complicate this story more by bringing in a regional context. yes, there is internal politics that drives this, there's history that drives it. israel and hamas are dealing with a different regional context as well. hamas had been tolerated by but not really liked by the mubarak government in israel which is in many ways the patron of palestinians in the middle east. the morsi government is more supportive of hamas. they used to be based in damascus, syria. they moved out pretty much just in time as the assad regime begins to crumble there and have found new friend in the region as they distance themselves from syria. israel is finding a region in which it has fewer friend and hamas is in a region in which i
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)